The Scottish Government

Listen

Sue Granville and Shona Mulholland, George Street Research
ISSN 1478-6796 (Online)
ISSN 1478-6788 (Print)

This document is also available in pdf format (104k)

Welcome to Insight

Insight is a publication of the research group within Information and Analytical Services Division, which is responsible for providing analytical services within the Scottish Executive Education Department ( SEED). Their work is part of a multidisciplinary unit (consisting of researchers, economists and statistics staff) and the staff undertakes and funds economic analysis and social research in the fields of: school education; children, young people and social work: architecture; and tourism, culture and sport.

The Scottish Executive is committed to the use of sound evidence in the development of policy and practice as well as in the evaluation of policy and its implementation. We therefore want to disseminate the results of research that SEED has undertaken and funded, in a manner that is accessible, interesting and attractive.

Insight aims to present the essence of research projects in a format that will be useful and informative for practitioners, policy makers, parents, academics, and anyone else who has an interest in economic and social research in these areas.

The views expressed in this Insight are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Scottish Executive or any other organisation(s) by whom the author(s) is or are employed.

Insight may be photocopied for use within your own institution.

Where Insights are available in print format a limited number of additional copies can be obtained from the Dissemination Officer, Information and Analytical Services Division, Scottish Executive Education Department, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ (telephone 0131-244-0316). Copies of Insight and our other publications can be downloaded from our website: www.scotland.gov.uk/insight/

Introduction

Since 2001, the independent Adoption Policy Review Group ( APRG) commissioned by the Scottish Executive, has been looking at adoption law and processes in Scotland. In June 2002, the group reported on the place of adoption services within the spectrum of services for children and young people, the quality of recruitment, selection and assessment procedures for prospective adopters and the extent and quality of post-adoption support. In June 2005 the Group reported on the legal framework for adoption. The Group made 107 recommendations, almost all of which have been accepted by the Scottish Executive.

While the adoption system in Scotland meets the needs of some children, there are also a number of problems with the current system and these are largely due to recent societal changes. For example, the traditional picture of adoption is of a baby being given up voluntarily by birth parents and being adopted by a couple who want a child of their own. However, factors now impacting on adoption include :

• Many children who need new homes have come into the adoption system after being taken away from their birth parents
• The number of people who apply to adopt or foster children is falling
• The current system does not cope well when children need or want to keep in contact with birth parents or other members of their birth family
• If a birth parent does not consent to an adoption, the process of adoption can become very lengthy.

There are alternatives to adoption but these are not felt to offer long-term security. Thus, the present system and laws do not always meet the needs of children.

Approach

In the light of these recommendations and as part of the legislative process, the Scottish Executive was keen to obtain views from individuals and organisations on aspects of their response to the APRG. A consultation, "Safe and secure homes for our most vulnerable children" took place between 30 June 2005 and 31 October 2005. The consultation document set out the background to the consultation and asked for views on a range of issues; including permanence orders, support for adoption, improving court rules, avoiding delays and access to information. A series of 21 questions were posed, although consultees were welcome to provide views on any related issues.

In order to encourage a wide a range of individuals to respond to the consultation, the consultation included two other elements. First, a programme of public consultation events conducted by the Scottish Civic Forum on behalf of the Scottish Executive. The aim of these consultation events was to bring the issue of adoption to the public eye and encourage a wider range of individuals and members of the general public to respond to the consultation. Second, a series of qualitative discussions undertaken by George Street Research. These were intended to be more deliberative in nature than the information events and concentrated on accessing the views of particular groups of interest who might not be expected to respond to a consultation but whose views were considered of importance. These included individuals who had :

• Been adopted during their lifetime in Scotland
• Adopted someone during their lifetime in Scotland
• Placed someone for adoption during their lifetime in Scotland
• Experience of a close family member going through the adoption process, either placing someone for adoption or trying to adopt someone in Scotland
• Professional experience of delivery of adoption services in Scotland

It is intended that findings across all these elements of the consultation process will feed into legislation.

Who Participated?

A total of 496 responses were received to the consultation and these came from a wide range of Organisations and Individuals with an interest and / or involvement in the adoption process in Scotland. Of the 496 responses, 381 were from Individuals (responding as members of the general public) and 115 were from professionals responding on behalf of Organisations.

A total of 69 people attended 4 consultation events in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Fort William, and 34 people participated in qualitative discussions in various locations in Scotland.

Analysis of responses to the consultation was conducted using qualitative and quantitative analytical approaches. Key themes and issues emerging from information events and qualitative discussions have been incorporated into this insight summary.

The context

It is important for the analysis to represent views from all perspectives and the views presented in our reporting have not been vetted in any way for factual accuracy. Given the self-selecting nature of any consultation exercise, it should be noted that any statistics quoted in this summary cannot be extrapolated to a wider population outwith the consultation population.

Across all elements of the consultation, those working in a professional capacity within the adoption sector tended to comment on a wide variety of issues in relation to the adoption process in Scotland. Conversely, responses from Individuals (members of the general public) tended to focus very much on the single issue of adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples.

Who should be allowed to adopt?

Most respondents considered the welfare of a child placed for adoption to be of paramount importance. There was some support for the introduction of legislation that will allow for a couple to jointly adopt and for the range of people able to adopt to be extended to include unmarried and same-sex couples. However, higher levels of support for these recommendations came from Professionals working in the sector and / or representing Organisations within the sector than from Individuals responding as members of the general public.

A higher proportion of Professionals responding to the consultation specifically were in favour of adoption by unmarried couples (30% pro compared to 18% anti) or adoption by same-sex couples (32% in favour compared to 22% anti). The large majority of Individuals responding as a member of the general public to the consultation were anti adoption by same-sex couples (89% of Individuals opposed to this) or unmarried couples (83% of Individuals opposed to this). These Individuals also provided significant support for a conscience clause if adoption is to be opened up to same-sex or unmarried couples.

Views were less polarised from those attending information events and qualitative discussions, although those participating as Professionals were more supportive of adoption by unmarried couples or same-sex couples than those participating as Individuals.

A wide variety of criteria were cited as being important for any adoptive parents to meet and these focused more on the capacity to offer emotional support and a stable family environment than their financial status.

What criteria should be applied to those wanting to adopt? Should these criteria be applied consistently across Scotland?

Criteria cited by respondents as being important included,

• A capacity to offer a loving, stimulating and supportive home
• Demonstrating that a relationship is stable, responsible and loving
• Demonstrating permanence in a relationship.

While many of those opposing the concept of joint adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples were in agreement with these adoption criteria, they argued that joint adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples was not in the best interests of the child to be adopted.

There were calls for guidance to be issued on criteria for adoption in order to create consistency in adoption processes throughout Scotland.

Who should be responsible for guidance on criteria for adoption to be used in determining the best interests of the child?

Should a Permanence Order be Introduced?

The APRG has recommended the introduction of a Permanence Order to replace the existing Parental Responsibilities Order and Freeing Order. The benefit of this is that it would allow for more flexibility to take account of the different needs of children who cannot live with their birth parents.

From the respondents' point of view, anything that would serve to simplify the adoption process was seen to be beneficial. The concept of a Permanence Order was welcomed by a majority of those responding to the consultation, albeit that some had little actual understanding of this or how it would operate.

However, there were calls for clear procedures, guidance and training if a Permanence Order is introduced.

Who should be responsible for guidance on use of Permanence Orders?

What should be the role of the Children's Hearing System?

There was broad support for the ongoing inclusion of the Children's Hearing System in permanence cases. However, there were also requests for clarity as to the role of the Children's Hearing System and how this sits alongside other elements of the adoption process (such as Permanence Orders).

There were also some suggestions that the findings from this consultation should be considered alongside those from the recent Executive evaluation on the Children's Hearing System and the 21 ^st Century Social Work Review. The key benefit to this was felt to be that it would help to provide a framework for permanency planning.

Who should be responsible for training individuals involved with the Children's Hearing System?

Who should be able to access adoption support services?

There was widespread support for adoption support services to be extended to all parties involved in adoption and for the range of support services on offer to be extended. The types of people who should be offered these services included adopted children, adoptive parents, birth parents, grandparents, siblings and other birth family members. Preferences for support services to be provided were - in the main - for emotional and therapeutic, rather than financial services.

What support services should be available? What are the priority services that should be offered? How should support services be publicised?

There was widespread support for local authorities to have an adoption support manager within the senior management team. The key benefits were that this would aid consistency in approach across all local authorities and help with the dissemination and sharing of good practice across Scotland.

Who would be responsible for funding an adoption support manager in each local authority?

There was support for a national scheme of adoption allowances from those responding to the consultation, although support for this specific element from those participating in qualitative research was split and those attending information events did not think that adoptive parents should be paid an allowance.

A majority of those commenting agreed that a local authority placing a child for adoption should have responsibility for providing adoption support services to the child and adoptive family for three years after the adoption order. However, some respondents noted that services are most prolific within the Central Belt and there were calls for all services to be accessible and delivered at a local level.

Respondents commented on the issue of communication in relation to the provision of adoption services and noted two key areas of concern. First, that local authorities tend to have little communication with each other and that there is a need to ensure a consistent approach to adoption (and fostering) across Scotland.

Second, there was a view expressed (sometimes based on personal experience) that many individuals who might wish to make use of support services would be unaware of what might be currently available and / or how to access these services. There were requests from many respondents for increased publicity and marketing of available services.

How to improve court rules and avoid delays?

There were concerns that existing court rules prolong the adoption process to the detriment of those involved. A majority of those responding to the consultation specifically,

• agreed with the need for a system of leave to apply to court
• supported legislation that would require the applicant to produce new evidence or evidence of a significant change in circumstances to support an application for leave
• supported the suggestion for legislation to limit the circumstances in which an applicant could seek information about an adopted child in support of an application to court.

Should there be a centralised national system to appoint and train curators, reporting officers and safeguarders from which individual case appointments are made locally? Should remuneration be paid centrally and take account of the varying amounts of work required in individual cases?

Although the Scottish Executive rejected this recommendation, there was widespread support from respondents for the Executive to reconsider its position. The key benefit to the introduction of this recommendation being that there is a need for a national approach to training to help ensure consistency in practice across Scotland.

Should there be a national scale of fostering allowances?

There was broad agreement for a national scale of fostering allowances, although there were some queries as to how this would be funded. Moreover, some respondents also noted concerns that independent providers would not agree to a national scale.

How would such a scheme be funded?

There was support from some consultees for the Scottish Executive to offer guidance containing national scales of allowances. However, some organisations called for clarification of the role of local authorities and other government bodies within the adoption process. There were calls for standardised assessment, support and safeguards and a need identified to develop guidelines and procedures.

There was support for a working group on private fostering, with some requests for more work on the private fostering system and a need for legislative reform.

Should procedures within local authorities and agencies change?

There was general agreement that procedures within local authorities and agencies should be changed and that training and clear guidance needs to be developed to sit alongside any changes introduced.

There were also requests for improved communication between local authorities and consistency in their approach to various elements of the adoption process.

While many respondents did not have a clear understanding of the adoption process, there was a general view that it is currently too lengthy and can serve to cause distress to individuals involved in the process. The concept of anything that serves to simplify the process and offer flexibility was welcomed.

A degree of criticism was levelled at the existing system due to inconsistency across local authorities and agencies.

Who should have access to information?

There was widespread agreement that medical information should be available to adopted children, either directly or via a third party such as a GP or adoptive parent, and particularly if there was potential for hereditary illness. Some respondents noted concerns over data protection and confidentiality but the broad consensus was that the interests of the child were of paramount importance and that these should take precedence over the views of a birth parent. So, for example, some respondents considered that a birth parent reluctant to provide information should have their wishes overruled.

There were also a small number of requests for more general family information to be provided.

Should the views of birth parents be overruled if they do not wish to provide information?

The Insight Series

1. Classroom Assistants: Key Issues from the National Evaluation
2. The Impact of ICT Initiatives in Scottish Schools
3. Moving On to Primary 1: An Exploratory Study of the Experience of Transition from Pre-School to Primary
4. Accelerating Reading and Spelling with Synthetic Phonics: A Five Year Follow Up
5. Assessment of Benefits and Costs of Out of School Care
6. Meeting the Needs of Children from Birth to Three: Research Evidence and Implications for Out-of-Home Provision
7. Key Findings from the National Evaluation of the New Community Schools Pilot Programme in Scotland
8. Scottish Qualification for Headship: Key Issues from the Evaluation
9. The Sitter Service in Scotland: A Study of the Costs and Benefits
10. Awards in Early Education, Childcare and Playwork: A Qualifications Framework for the Future
11. An Evaluation of the Higher Still Reforms
12. The Management of Supply Cover in the Teaching Profession
13. Parents' Demand for and Access to Childcare in Scotland
14. Evaluation of Personalised Laptop Provision in Schools
15. Teachers' Perceptions of Discipline in Scottish Schools
16. Minority Ethnic Pupils' Experiences of School in Scotland ( MEPESS)
17. A Seven Year Study of the Effects of Synthetic Phonics Teaching on Reading and Spelling Attainment
18. An Assessment of the Support and Information for Victims of Youth Crime ( SIVYC) Pilot Scheme
19. Child Death and Significant Case Reviews: International Approaches
20. The Impact of Information and Communication Technology in Scottish Schools: Phase 3
21. Investigating the Extent of Commercial Activity in Schools
22. Study Support and Out of School Hours Learning in Scottish Schools
23. Motivations for Undertaking the New Social Work Degree
24. Gender Balance of the Teaching Workforce in Publicly Funded Schools in Scotland
25. The Role Of The Social Worker In The 21st Century - A Literature Review (web only)
26. Evaluation of Free Fruit in Schools Initiative (web only)
27. Mainstreaming pupils with special educational needs
28. Early Years Education: Perspectives from a Review of the International Literature (web only)
29. Getting it Right for Every Child - Proposals for Action. Analysis of consultation responses

If you have views on Insight or wish to find out more about SEED's research and economics programme, please contact Information and Analytical Services Division, Scottish Executive Education Department, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ or by e-mail on recs.admin@scotland.gsi.gov.uk